Murphy (D) is down 5%, while McMahon is down 10% statewide (a 15% difference). CT-5 is about 10% more GOP than the state. So this to me is another indicator of just how nationalized this election is, absent unusual circumstances.

Murphy (D) is down 5%, while McMahon is down 10% statewide (a 15% difference). CT-5 is about 10% more GOP than the state. So this to me is another indicator of just how nationalized this election is, absent unusual circumstances.

The poll release said McMahon performed her best in CT-05.

Tomorrow's CT-04 release should be interesting. CT-01 should be a Democratic blowout. Hopefully, they poll the competitive race in CT-02, too.

Tomorrow's CT-04 release should be interesting. CT-01 should be a Democratic blowout. Hopefully, they poll the competitive race in CT-02, too.

You mean, hopefully CT-02 is a competitive race, too.

I'd been somewhat wondering why I hadn't heard anything on the two eastern CT races.Some people have this line about how a score of D incumbents are probably in trouble who don't even know it yet - how some seats might fall that nobody talked about - and I thought about what races they might mean and could think of about a dozen. These two were among them.

Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.

No, CT-02 should be competitive if CT-04 is. It's just one point more Democratic than CT-04 (D+6 vs D+5), but much more blue collar than the rest of Connecticut. It's working class whites that are abandoning the Democrats most. I'd be shocked if Peckinpaugh isn't within at least 7.

No, CT-02 should be competitive if CT-04 is. It's just one point more Democratic than CT-04 (D+6 vs D+5), but much more blue collar than the rest of Connecticut. It's working class whites that are abandoning the Democrats most. I'd be shocked if Peckinpaugh isn't within at least 7.

No, CT-02 should be competitive if CT-04 is. It's just one point more Democratic than CT-04 (D+6 vs D+5), but much more blue collar than the rest of Connecticut. It's working class whites that are abandoning the Democrats most. I'd be shocked if Peckinpaugh isn't within at least 7.

I'd be shocked if either of these races are actually competitive

Prepare to be shocked. All 3 districts were held by Republicans in 2004. CT-02 and CT-05 flipped in 2006; CT-04 in 2008. They should be competitive - and will be.

No, CT-02 should be competitive if CT-04 is. It's just one point more Democratic than CT-04 (D+6 vs D+5), but much more blue collar than the rest of Connecticut. It's working class whites that are abandoning the Democrats most. I'd be shocked if Peckinpaugh isn't within at least 7.

I'd be shocked if either of these races are actually competitive

Prepare to be shocked. All 3 districts were held by Republicans in 2004. CT-02 and CT-05 flipped in 2006; CT-04 in 2008. They should be competitive - and will be.

TX-22, FL-16, and KS-2 were Democratic in 2006, yet somehow I doubt they're going to be close This reminds me of how some people were saying Courtney and Murphy might be vulnerable/in tough races in 2008.

The key is the the GOP rebound in white upper class suburbs. That explains CT-05 and CT-04. In the 2000-2008 paradigm these were becoming more and more Dem and off limits to the GOP. Hence in 2006, Scott Elliot of Election Projections Listed CT-02 and CT-05 as the least likely to go back to the GOP after they were lost. The Paradigm has shifted significantly.

No, CT-02 should be competitive if CT-04 is. It's just one point more Democratic than CT-04 (D+6 vs D+5), but much more blue collar than the rest of Connecticut. It's working class whites that are abandoning the Democrats most. I'd be shocked if Peckinpaugh isn't within at least 7.

I'd be shocked if either of these races are actually competitive

Prepare to be shocked. All 3 districts were held by Republicans in 2004. CT-02 and CT-05 flipped in 2006; CT-04 in 2008. They should be competitive - and will be.

TX-22, FL-16, and KS-2 were Democratic in 2006, yet somehow I doubt they're going to be close This reminds me of how some people were saying Courtney and Murphy might be vulnerable/in tough races in 2008.

Cappielo was a strong candidate who just couldn't get traction in 2008 due to the environment and the continuing trend against the GOP in these type of seats.

CT-02 was only going to be Competative if Simmons had a rematch. He didn't.

As was mentioned, CT-02 is more blue collar working class whites then the other two districts are. That coud be either good or bad for GOP. Simmons did well in this district but it was held by a Dem for 20 to 30 years before him and Simmons only be him due to a scandal I beleive in 2000, overcoming Gore's victory in the district. I think CT-02 is hardest of all them for the GOP to oust an incumbent Dem.

No, CT-02 should be competitive if CT-04 is. It's just one point more Democratic than CT-04 (D+6 vs D+5), but much more blue collar than the rest of Connecticut. It's working class whites that are abandoning the Democrats most.

Nobody is abandoning the Democrats in large numbers, not even to nonvoting. What's actually happening is Republicans are turning out in record numbers for a midterm. And the fourth, being far more suburban, is much more likely to vote party not person in downballot races.This isn't to say that the second might not be competitive too - just that it might not be.

Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.

No, CT-02 should be competitive if CT-04 is. It's just one point more Democratic than CT-04 (D+6 vs D+5), but much more blue collar than the rest of Connecticut. It's working class whites that are abandoning the Democrats most.

Nobody is abandoning the Democrats in large numbers, not even to nonvoting. What's actually happening is Republicans are turning out in record numbers for a midterm. And the fourth, being far more suburban, is much more likely to vote party not person in downballot races.This isn't to say that the second might not be competitive too - just that it might not be.

According to the recent AFK/AP poll, the gap in support among working class whites for Democratic congressional candidates has doubled from R+11 in 2008 to R+22. That's what I meant by a significant abandonment of Democrats by working class voters - so-called Reagan Democrats moving back to the GOP.

The trend is most evident in the Upper Midwest. Apparently, it's not translating to CT-02. CT Capitol Reports' pollster claims the result is due to Courtney localizing the race. I know Peckinpaugh had some tax issues.

CT Capitol Reports' pollster claims the result is due to Courtney localizing the race.

Which is easier to do in some types of areas than others. And certainly ought to be easier in eastern Connecticut that western Connecticut.Which brings me back to what I've been saying here, and for weeks, and Sam Spade has been implying for months. (Yankee's got it too.)

Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.

No, CT-02 should be competitive if CT-04 is. It's just one point more Democratic than CT-04 (D+6 vs D+5), but much more blue collar than the rest of Connecticut. It's working class whites that are abandoning the Democrats most.

Nobody is abandoning the Democrats in large numbers, not even to nonvoting. What's actually happening is Republicans are turning out in record numbers for a midterm. And the fourth, being far more suburban, is much more likely to vote party not person in downballot races.This isn't to say that the second might not be competitive too - just that it might not be.

People are abandoning Democrats, especially blue collar working class voters. The Problem is that this is New England and CT-02's blue collar workers might be resistant to voting GOP like has been seen in RI and Bristol, MA. This is the type of year in which such business as usuall can change but it doesn't mean it will and definately doesn't mean it is uniform acrossed these states.

People are abandoning Democrats, especially blue collar working class voters. The Problem is that this is New England and CT-02's blue collar workers might be resistant to voting GOP like has been seen in RI and Bristol, MA. This is the type of year in which such business as usuall can change but it doesn't mean it will and definately doesn't mean it is uniform acrossed these states.

Actually, Bristol County, MA had the second-largest swing of any MA county from McCain to Brown, and the largest swing from the Republican in most recent major competitive statewide races (Weld v. Kerry and Romney v. O'Brien). Granted, Scott Brown was from a neighboring county - but I don't think that explained all of it.

I don't think CT-02's blue collar workers are resistant to voting GOP. They did vote for Simmons.

One major difference between CT-02 and CT-04 and CT-05 is the lack of a Democratic stronghold city with a large minority population whose residents likely won't turn out in anywhere close to the same percentages this year as in '08. CT-04 has Bridgeport. CT-05 has New Britain and Danbury. Bridgeport turnout will likely determine who wins CT-04.

Pollsters actually expect the second-highest Dem percentage (of the available electorate) in a midterm in a long long time. 2006 being highest.The issue is that they're also expecting a record-shattering Rep percentage.

Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.

According to the recent AFK/AP poll, the gap in support among working class whites for Democratic congressional candidates has doubled from R+11 in 2008 to R+22.

No, it was a poll of whites who admitted to not having a degree, which was then packaged as a poll of 'the white working class'. Defining class in such terms is... actually pretty stupid. Though as whites who are working class are the part of the electorate most alienated from the two parties, they're also the largest block of swingable voters in the country. So, yeah.

According to the recent AFK/AP poll, the gap in support among working class whites for Democratic congressional candidates has doubled from R+11 in 2008 to R+22.

No, it was a poll of whites who admitted to not having a degree, which was then packaged as a poll of 'the white working class'. Defining class in such terms is... actually pretty stupid. Though as whites who are working class are the part of the electorate most alienated from the two parties, they're also the largest block of swingable voters in the country. So, yeah.

But shifts in low turnout elections are mostly about turnout.

AP argues that because of income disparities in different parts of the country, defining working class by educational background instead of income makes sense. A $50,000 family income in NYC is practically peanuts. $50,000 in Dubuque is a lot more.